Joint Doorstop with Senator Brandis - Parliament House
13 Feb 2012
Transcipt SENATOR THE HON GEORGE BRANDIS, SC
Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
Shadow Attorney-General
Shadow Minister for the Arts
THE HON CHRISTOPHER PYNE MP
Manager of Opposition Business in the House
Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training
Doorstop Interview
Parliament House, Canberra
13 February 2012
Topics: Australia Day Protest, Prime Minister’s Integrity
E&OE………………………………………………………………………………………………..
PYNE: Okay, thank you very much for coming to this doorstop this afternoon. I’m going to talk a little bit about the Prime Minister’s contradictions in Question Time today and the statements that she’s made and then George Brandis is going to comment on some of the evidence that’s been adduced at some of the Estimates hearings today into the matter to do with the Australia Day riots. The Prime Minister has not cleared up the contradictions in the statements she made on January 28th, with statements that have been borne out subsequently. Let me give you two examples. The Prime Minister, in her statement on the 28th of January said, ‘At no point did Mr Hodges say to Ms Sattler that Mr Abbott had suggested the Tent Embassy be torn down or removed in any way.’ And yet Ms Sattler yesterday on television and again this morning repeated on radio that, ‘Mr Hodges told me before the riot Tony Abbott made a comment that the Tent Embassy shouldn’t exist anymore, it should be moved on.’ A very clear contradiction between the Prime Minister and Kim Sattler which the Prime Minister was asked about today in Question Time and she absolutely refused to answer that question. She obfuscated and deceived the Australian public into pretending that there had been no contradiction in her statements. Further, the Prime Minister said on January the 28th, ‘Mr Hodges was advised by the journalist at The Lobby Restaurant that Mr Abbott that morning had made a statement in relation to the Tent Embassy in Canberra.’ And yet David Speers on Sky Television last week said, ‘Well I did have Mr Hodges here in the office on the day that we’re talking about before the protest had actually happened and he did refer to Tony Abbott’s comments.’ So in fact the Prime Minister’s expecting us to believe that Mr Hodges was able to brief David Speers of Sky Television about a matter that he didn’t even know about yet. Now, what this leads us to, Prime Minister had those questions put to her today in Question Time, and she again refused to answer and referred the Opposition to her statement of January 28th and yet the question we were putting to her with the direct contradiction in her statements on January the 28th with further evidence that’s come out either from Kim Sattler or on Sky Television. What it points to is the Prime Minister is deceiving, egregiously deceiving the Australian public about this matter. Now I call on the Labor Party, on those members of the Labor Party of good conscience who must know the Prime Minister has so debased the office of Prime Minister that she should no longer hold it, to do the appropriate thing, to remove the Prime Minister from the office as she refuses to accept her culpability in this matter. I call on members of good conscience in the Labor Party to take the appropriate action and remove the Prime Minister from that office and install someone who will return integrity to truthfulness in this government. This is a real test for the Labor Party. It is a test for the Labor Party to determine whether they place the integrity of the position of Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s office over a Prime Minister who is prepared to protect a culture of dirty tricks in her own office.
JOURNALIST: Is this...
PYNE: George will make some comments first.
BRANDIS: There was about two hours’ of evidence in Senate Estimates this afternoon in which the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Evans, was given the opportunity to explain the inconsistencies in the Prime Minister’s versions of the events of Australia Day immediately afterwards. After two hours of evidence, the government’s case remains riddled with inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and implausiblilities. As well as the matters which Mr Pyne has referred to, which were put to Senator Evans and which he remains utterly unable to explain, Senator Evans was also unable to explain the cover-up. He was unable to explain why, according to the Prime Minister’s version of events on Sunday the 29th of January her senior staff were told of these events on the evening of Australia Day when Mr Hodges confessed his involvement. And yet, the following day, the day after Australia Day, Friday the 27th, Mr Hodges was in attendance of the Prime Minister when she did an event in Flowerdale, Victoria, and her Chief of Staff, Mr Ben Hubbard, who knew all about these events not later than the evening of Australia Day actually travelled in the car with the Prime Minister to Flowerdale, about a 90 minute journey from Melbourne, and back and according to the government’s version of events didn’t even tell the Prime Minister what he knew. This is intrinsically implausible, the principle actor in the events, Mr Hodges, was with the Prime Minister, her Chief of Staff to whom Mr Hodges had made his confession the night before was actually on the journey with the Prime Minister. The issue was in a condition of meltdown that morning on the talkback radios across, at least, the eastern seaboard and the government would have us believe that the Prime Minister was kept innocently in the dark. The Prime Minister has a lot more explaining to do, the problem is that every time she essays a new explanation she makes a new contradiction, she gives another inconsistent version. When witnesses can’t give consistent and accurate accounts of relatively simple events, it invites the almost inevitable conclusion that they are making it up.
JOURNALIST: But is this he said, she said, obviously it was a fast-paced thing, things were happening quickly, is this really something that the Prime Minister should be sacked over?
PYNE: Look, the Prime Minister is presiding over her office and it’s very clear that the [unclear] that she has created around the Australia Day riots is utterly implausible and when contradictions are put to her in the House of Representatives, which is the correct place for that to occur, she simply refuses to answer the question and pretends that there is no question to answer. Obviously when the Prime Minister is in the position where they are presiding over a culture of dirty tricks in their office, they have two choices: they can either put an end to that culture and act to dismiss the staff and change that culture, or they can try and cover it up. The Prime Minister in this instance, now for some time, since January the 28th has chosen the latter course. So this is a real test for the Labor Party. It is a test for those members of the Labor Party of good conscience who respect the office of Prime Minister to act. They can do so. They can remove the Prime Minister and put into that role whomever of their number they believe will restore integrity to the office of Prime Minister.
JOURNALIST: Given that Tony Hodges has already gone, isn’t this much ado about nothing?
PYNE: Well it’s moved on beyond that Tony. Sure, Tony Hodges has resigned, but as if often the case in politics, the cover up is often worse than the crime. And the cover up is coming directly from the Prime Minister and her office. If the Prime Minister genuinely wanted to put this matter behind her, first of all she would’ve referred it to the Australian Federal Police which took the Opposition to do that, secondly she would answer questions in Question Time with candour and ensure that the public had all the information before it. She’s chosen to do the absolute opposite and that is why the Labor Party must act to remove her from office and ensure a person holds that, from the Labor Party caucus, who’ll restore integrity and confidence to the position.
JOURNALIST: Given the history of cover ups in the Australian Parliament over the years, this is hardly Watergate, it’s not even water really is it?
PYNE: What is significant is that the Prime Minister is prepared to protect her office from their egregious mistakes and in the process deceive the Australian people into believing she has answered all the questions. Now, we have...
JOURNALIST: She’s [unclear] of Mr Hodges. He’s been sacked.
PYNE: ...Now, we are, well Mr Hodges was the sacrificial lamb...
JOURNALIST: He was the perpetrator.
PYNE: ...To protect the rest of the Prime Minister’s office and the Prime Minister and I think most people find it utterly unbelievable that a junior media adviser would be, one, coming up with this plan on their own to lay a trap for the Leader of the Opposition, and secondly then be briefing the Press Gallery without having any recourse to anybody else in the office, and then having told, as George has mentioned, having told his superiors, his superiors would not then give that information to the Prime Minister for almost 24 hours. It beggars belief.
JOURNALIST: Well that’s all after the fact though. I mean...
PYNE: Cover ups happen after the fact.
JOURNALIST: ...Are you suggesting that the Prime Minister might’ve had something to do with this in the first place?
PYNE: What I’m talking about today is the Prime Minister’s answers since the event. She made a statement on January the 28th. It is riddled with contradictions. The Opposition in both the House of Representatives and Senate Estimates has exposed those contradictions and the Prime Minister has, unfortunately, chosen the path of deceiving the Australian people over the Australia Day riots and I think you’re correct. Often, it is not the crime itself that removes a Prime Minister, it is the attempted cover-up, the Prime Minister is now facing very serious questions about her role in protecting her office and that is why I’m calling on the Labor Party to face this test full in the face and to remove the Prime Minister and put someone in who has the integrity to do the job.
BRANDIS: Tony, you asked about, you said the cover up, you said that this is after the fact. Cover ups always happen after the...
JOURNALIST: Sorry I was trying to get on the idea whether or not you reckoned her Chief, Ben, had something to do with it in the first place is all.
BRANDIS: What is bizarre and sinister about this case, this was revealed in Senate Estimates this afternoon and I gather in the House of Representatives as well, is the Prime Minister has gone one beyond Richard Nixon. She’s trying to cover up the cover up. Nobody believes that Mr Hodges was other than a fall guy. We know the Prime Minister’s senior staff knew all about this not later than late on Australia Day. And yet the Prime Minister the next day pretended to be all innocent. Mr Hodges has been made a fall guy. He hasn’t made a statement about these events by the way, everything the Prime Minister herself has said about these events, either directly or to the Senate through her representative Minister, Senator Evans, defies credulity.
JOURNALIST: Why should Senator Evans have to answer these questions? What relevance does it have to the Budget?
BRANDIS: Because that’s his job. He’s the Minister representing the Prime Minister and that’s what Senate Estimates Committees are for, to expose the dark underbelly of government.
JOURNALIST: Could I ask you both please on the subject of the trio of gay marriage bills going before Parliament and also Mr Entsch’s suggested [unclear] on same-sex unions. Do you think Mr Entsch’s likely Private Member’s Bill might have more of a chance than gay marriage bills?
PYNE: Ben, this press conference is about the very serious matter of the Prime Minister’s integrity. It’s about the Labor Party recognising that the Prime Minister has crossed the Rubicon when it comes to the office that she holds and the Prime Ministership of Australia. It’s not about that issue and they’re questions you can quite rightly put to Warren Entsch or anybody else.
JOURNALIST: Mr Pyne, on the issue of the Private Health Insurance Rebate, Tony Abbott tried to suspend motions accusing Ms Gillard of breaking the promise on the Health Insurance Rebate. Was the Coalition not making its stance clear on whether they’ll repeal the rebate because you don’t want to be accused of breaking a promise if you don’t repeal it?
PYNE: As I just said, this is a press conference about the Prime Minister’s integrity, the culture of dirty tricks that exists in the Prime Minister’s office and the need for the Labor Party to accept this test and put someone into the job who’ll restore confidence in the role. If there are no more questions...
JOURNALIST: ...[Unclear] That’s the whole point, that this is a big distraction, that you guys won’t answer questions about the debate that is going on right now, private health insurance, gay marriage. These are questions the Australian people want to talk about. Instead, all you will do is answer questions about this Australia Day protest.
PYNE: I think the Australian public are dead interested in the integrity of the office of Prime Minister and whether the Prime Minister is telling the truth about the Australia Day riots. I think that is a very important priority...
JOURNALIST: ...Can I just ask, why do you keep calling it the Australia Day riots when no one was arrested, no one was injured, there was no property damage and the situation was so out of control the police didn’t use capsicum spray. Aren’t you just dog whistling here to keep referring to them as riots?
BRANDIS: The expression riots was in fact used by Michelle Grattan, so it’s not a piece of political spin. Tomorrow when the Australian Federal Police appear before Senate Estimates we will ask them exactly what they have been doing in relation to the event. This was the most serious security breach, as the footage plainly conveys, involving the Australian Prime Minister since at least 30 years ago. So we don’t make light of this. It ruined Australia Day. It embarrassed Australia in the eyes of the world because it led the news in the United States, United Kingdom and other foreign countries, and it places, for all of the reasons both Mr Pyne and I have explained, the credibility and the integrity of the Prime Minister right on the line. I don’t think there’s a person in this country who thinks they are getting the full story about these events.
JOURNALIST: But riot’s a very strong term isn’t it? I mean, there’s more arrests at a Collingwood game then...
PYNE: Well, I think you know, if you want to make light of what happened on Australia Day then you’ll be one of the few people who’s doing so. The Prime Minister was placed in a headlock, dragged down stairs, pulled across a path, shoved in the back of a Comcar...
JOURNALIST: By the police.
PYNE: ...Lost her shoe in the process...
JOURNALIST: Not by protesters.
PYNE: ...Well you think they just did that off their own bat do you? They were doing it in response to the extraordinary performance that was occurring at The Lobby Restaurant. The Prime Minister was humiliated personally and the country was humiliated. It’s no idle matter. It was the greatest security breach for a Prime Minister since the Fraser Government and we don’t make light of it.
JOURNALIST: While you were trying to get to the bottom of a cover up in Parliament today, the new Speaker tossed out I think five members of your side. Were you happy about that?
PYNE: That’s a question you can put to the Speaker about why he tossed out five members of the...
JOURNALIST: Do you think it was fair?
PYNE: ...Opposition frontbench. Well, this is like any kind of situation where this is an umpire. The umpire shouldn’t be disagreed with. They have to get on with their job and we have to get on with ours.
JOURNALIST: Worse than a Collingwood game.
JOURNALIST: Getting a rough go from the Speaker.
PYNE: I never complain.
BRANDIS: Thank you.
PYNE: Thanks guys.
ENDS.